Talk:Joseph Stalin
Article Length Articles like this worry me that we will eventually have to break up historical figures into multiple articles. This fucker is LONG. TR 22:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC) :Only because the Joe Steele section goes on forever. ::Indeed, but only because much happens in ten pages of story. TR 04:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Dictators Category By the way, was there a reason you didn't have him in the Dictators categories? I went ahead and added him but we can roll it back if there's a really pressing reason. Turtle Fan 02:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC) ::No reason. Probably just forgot. TR 04:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC) ::EDIT, actually, no, he was indeed in dictators. Hard to see with everything else. TR 04:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC) :::Ah. I thought dictators was done. Turtle Fan 04:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Anonymous Edits I wonder why the anon felt the need to remove the RftF section but leave the others. RftF is perhaps the least counterfactual of all of them, or at least comes in second behind MwIH. Turtle Fan 19:08, October 1, 2009 (UTC) All right, Gladiator too. Hmm--Noticing they do go in that order--and I seem to recall us deciding we were going to run an experiment with this article involving ordering sections for people who appear in many stories from their most nearly-OTL versions to their least. Turtle Fan 19:10, October 1, 2009 (UTC) :Yeah, that's sort of what I did. TR 19:46, October 1, 2009 (UTC) ::In TG he did everything the same and it's only the way he's remembered that's changed--which doesn't make sense, since the POD is post-destalinization and it's the upsurgence of nationalism in post-Soviet Russia, to replace communism, that's led to his recent rehabilitation. In MwIH everything's the same up through the end of the war and then he deals with the German resistance exactly as you would expect him to, unlike the American leadership. In RftF the war ends early and he moves on from there. In WW it ends even earlier when it's called off on account of alien invasion. (I would think that, if the anon took issue with the former, he wouldn't want to leave the latter be, either.) HW and ItPoME might be moved up ahead of WW if we're still doing that. In TL-191 his life is fundamentally different, and in JS, even more dramatically so. Turtle Fan 02:45, October 2, 2009 (UTC) :::What I sort of did was go from most recent POD to oldest, except for JS, which actually has a POD after 191, but, as you pointed out, is fundamentally different. ItPoMe Probably needs to go ahead of HW, anyway. Actually, HW is a wild card at the moment. With Japan on the attack, things could go...well, they could. Stop laughing, I'm serious. TR 03:57, October 2, 2009 (UTC) OTL Comments If I went too far with OTL comments about Stalin's legacy, go ahead and revert. That issue plays a minor role in both ''The Gladiator'' and The Valley-Westside War, so it seemed worth addressing here. TR 19:47, March 13, 2010 (UTC) :Since this is probably our longest article, a discussion of legacy doesn't bother me any. I did dial down the bit about his rehabilitation just a bit--He's still got plenty of critics. Turtle Fan 20:50, March 13, 2010 (UTC) People Born in the Russian Empire On an unrelated note, we have his place of birth as Georgia. Was Georgia independent in 1878? I would have thought it was part of the Russian Empire. Turtle Fan 20:50, March 13, 2010 (UTC) EDIT: And I would have been right. Should we change his place of birth to Russian Empire? :I suggest Russian Empire in paranthentical after "George". TR 02:22, March 14, 2010 (UTC) And while we're at it, do we have enough people born in the Russian Empire to make another one of those People Born in Defunct Countries articles? I'd be shocked to learn we didn't. Turtle Fan 20:53, March 13, 2010 (UTC) :If we start with the minimum three: Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky--so yes. Then we also have two tsars, Molotov, I think Mikoyan, probably some others. TR 02:22, March 14, 2010 (UTC) ::Koniev, Zhukov, I believe Beria. Turtle Fan 02:43, March 14, 2010 (UTC) :::Some fictional characters would probably also go into the list. TR 03:14, March 14, 2010 (UTC) ::::Also, ML4E. Turtle Fan 05:16, March 14, 2010 (UTC) :::: ::::His is linked to the Americans link on the top left of the page. How can this be changed don't think Mr. Turtledove had him as American in any of his books ;-) 02:41, October 6, 2010 (UTC) :::::"Joe Steele" Turtle Fan 03:18, October 6, 2010 (UTC) A Location in Newfoundland Any guesses as to where? St John's struck me as the obvious choice. But I'm really at a loss as to why Stalin would bother, especially with his severely limited stockpile. (Actually, some of these bombings of seemingly unimportant targets have me worried that HT's going to ignore that limitation for the sake of telling the story the way he wants.) :As I'm rereading for our little project here, I'm actually feeling more and more convinced HT (and by extension, his Stalin) is painfully aware of how few bombs the Soviets actually have. The Soviet attacks on the West are follow some very specific criteria: transportation and manufacturing. The West Coast cities all double as ports and are heavily populated. Seattle also has Boeing. Hoover Dam was probably the target of the Vegas attack. SLC and Denver are both crucial transportation hubs on railroad lines. :Now, Ihor wonders why there were no attacks on major East Coast cities, and vaguely decides that maybe the were too well guarded. If so, then Bangor and Wherever, Newfoundland might just be settling for disrupting transport without risking precious bombs getting shot down, whereas NYC and Washington might still cost a bomb and have no payoff. :After the Western attacks, the US escalates its bombing raids considerably, throwing losts of bombs at Vladivostok, hitting other ports in Siberia, as well as Kiev, Leningrad, Moscow, but the Soviet reprisal is pretty muted. I haven't gotten that far in my re-read, but I'm pretty sure the only responses the USSR is able to muster in the aftermath of all that are the Canals, Bordeaux, and Paris, and the French attacks take a LONG time (comparatively speaking) to take place, after much rerouting for Gribkov and his crew. :Now, obviously, HT could just do as you say, and find a way to ramp up the USSR's bomb making skills, but I don't think that's where he's headed. Obviously, we've all been burned before. TR (talk) 20:03, November 8, 2015 (UTC) ::What you're saying does make sense, but it could go another direction as well. The status of both the Soviet and British nuclear programs are major auestion marks heading into Book Two, and with HT's track record, I fully expect him to work toward the answers that are most favorable to his story vision. If plausibility has to suffer, he may see this as an acceptable trade-off. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:04, November 8, 2015 (UTC) At any rate, as I'm sure you're all sick of hearing me say, I can't understand why he'd go after Atlantic Canada while leaving the far more strategically valuable port of Vancouver alone. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:26, November 8, 2015 (UTC) :It's not an unfair question. Ultimately, I think "author fiat" is the answer; they didn't target Vancouver the first time, and they lost the opportunity with the destruction of Provideniya. TR (talk) 20:03, November 8, 2015 (UTC) ::I can understand that they can't launch a second wave on Pacific North America, but I'm still curious as to why they wouldn't hit it in the first. I think it was always understood that bombing North America, especially on the Pacific coast, was going to be a one-night-only event; so hit everything worth hitting on that one night, you know? ::When I first realized they were taking a pass on Vancouver, as that chapter unfolded, I wondered if they might be going easy on Canada, perhaps with an eye toward maintaining not-too-terrible relations for some future diplomatic mischief. But no. And I haven't come up with an alternate explanation since. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:04, November 8, 2015 (UTC) :My guess is Gander which was a key airport during WWII for trans-Atlantic flights especially those ferrying fighter and bomber aircraft to Britain. Aircraft of the day didn't have the range to cross the Atlantic non-stop and so had to refuel with Gander being as far east as you could get while being in North America. As such, it would be a strategic target for WWIII since aircraft wouldn't have had much gain in range in the early 1950s. ML4E (talk) 19:32, November 8, 2015 (UTC) ::It would have been nice for him to name check something. TR (talk) 20:03, November 8, 2015 (UTC) ::Hmm, that makes sense. There's more to be gained from that than St John's, I'd imagine. Of course, I'd now expect one or another European POV to comment on how NATO air cover is suffering for want of its airfield. Unless they just moved that operation to Greenland or something and didn't bother mentioning it. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:04, November 8, 2015 (UTC) Succession Boxes Jonathan: Why did you delete The War That Came Early succession box? ML4E (talk) 16:57, June 16, 2016 (UTC) :There's no difference between it and OTL. Same beginning date, and he's still incumbent in a year when he was still incumbent in OTL. Same for FDR and Hirohito in TWTCE.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 21:36, June 16, 2016 (UTC) ::In a world where Churchill died, the British government was toppled, Hitler was overthrown by the military, and Mussolini and Daladier held on for longer than OTL, there is value in pointing out where the incumbents of OTL kept their job. TR (talk) 15:30, June 17, 2016 (UTC) :::Isn't that what the article sections are for? Turtle Fan (talk) 17:39, June 17, 2016 (UTC) ::::Yes, but the value in a succession box lies in being able to just go "Hey, was Stalin running the USSR in TWPE? down at the bottom. Why yes, he was" as opposed to reading the whole section. TR (talk) 18:16, June 17, 2016 (UTC) Hist refs "Ils ne passeront pas" got missed, it's a definite hist ref. I guess the War World Series bit is too, as with the other Soviet leaders referenced in the subsection, but not having read that series I can't say for sure.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 09:24, February 16, 2017 (UTC) "Inpp" should be moved. I haven't read War World either, but the context seems to suggest that Stalin has regained a following in that distance future world. Admittedly, this is a little less impressive given what's going on in Russia now. But I'll defer to ML4E. TR (talk) 16:40, February 16, 2017 (UTC) :In the War World sub-series of the CoDominium Universe stories, the moon Haven is a penal colony for exiles. As I recall, the New Soviet Men were the descendants of exiled Stalinist so its hard to say what the USSR though of him before the final nuclear war that devastated the Earth in early 2100s. In the centuries after, with Haven isolated, the New Soviet Men developed into a quasi-feudal society but still honored Stalin and Lenin while being contemptuous of Gorbachev. However, the three are not named and not referenced again so I think Hist Refs. for the three would be appropriate. ML4E (talk) 22:16, February 17, 2017 (UTC) ::I think After the Downfall should be restored because it's a reference to an incumbent ruler.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 07:40, February 19, 2017 (UTC) :::ADF is in OTL. There's nothing remarkable about Stalin still running the USSR. TR (talk) 08:14, February 19, 2017 (UTC) ::::The incumbent ruler rule applies in OTL stories too, eg "We Haven't Got There Yet".JonathanMarkoff (talk) 08:16, February 19, 2017 (UTC) :::::It's debatable whether WHGTY is set in OTL. TR (talk) 08:25, February 19, 2017 (UTC) :::::I think throw away lines about incumbents in a prologue scene for a work not involving that timeline doesn't justify inclusion as a sub-section. I think you are pushing that as justification too far. ML4E (talk) 18:57, February 19, 2017 (UTC) ::::::Hasso muses on the WWII figures several times throughout his life in the fantasy world. The references to Stalin and others help define Hasso's character and views. By contrast, the reference to Victoria of Britain in "Gentlemen of the Shade" is pretty pithy.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 08:00, February 20, 2017 (UTC) :::::::He fought during WWII. Of course the political and military leaders of the war will inform his worldview. And the section here was of the caliber of "who would win in a fight, Dracula or Frankenstein?" :::::::Victoria's role in Gentlemen is quite pithy, and maybe it should be in hist refs. Speaking for myself, however, I find the fact that these vampires toast a woman who is quite a bit younger than them out of a sense of duty and decorum far more revealing about their characters than Pemso's ruminations on Stalin, et. al. TR (talk) 16:56, February 20, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::Victoria's role is definitely insightful and colourful enough to stay.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 06:52, February 21, 2017 (UTC) The Man Who Came Late This seems pretty typical fodder for the References to Historical Figures in Turtledove's Work page. TR (talk) 14:53, September 2, 2017 (UTC) :I agree, it looks that way to me too. ML4E (talk) 15:36, September 2, 2017 (UTC) Anonymous addition An anonymous person added the following in the JS section: "(on page 73 referenCE is made to ripleys believe it or not)" Why does this matter? And why is it not properly formatted? TR (talk) 18:12, October 13, 2017 (UTC) :As I recall, whoever was telling Charlie Sullivan about J. Edgar, said believe it or not his name is Hoover, and implicitly that he is hoovering up all sorts of useful blackmail info. Why it matters here isn't obvious to me since we have the reference covered elsewhere. I hope Anonymous will explain his/her intentions. ML4E (talk) 19:05, October 13, 2017 (UTC) ::It has nothing to do with the biography of Steele, and is covered by the lit ref. There is no reason it belongs in Steele's biography.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 21:35, October 13, 2017 (UTC) ::It occurs to me we could make it into a footnote saying "See Ripley's believe it or not" provided the entry is expanded to explain the reference rather than the current generic statement we have now. ML4E (talk) 15:17, October 14, 2017 (UTC) :::We could, but I don't see why we should give that particular scene a "point of pride" in the Stalin section when we don't have it in the J. Edgar section, etc. TR (talk) 15:24, October 14, 2017 (UTC) :::The reference has nothing to do with Steele, and doesn't belong in his biography, not even as a footnote. It's a metaphor that Charlie briefly thinks of in relation to the famous column, and is covered by the lit ref.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 19:24, October 14, 2017 (UTC) ::I was thinking of a literary use of the footnote, more like the references to Inconsistencies, but I don't object to its removal if Anonymous doesn't respond and justify it. ML4E (talk) 17:52, October 15, 2017 (UTC) Final fate in ItPoME I recently examined ItPoME, and couldn't find a reference to a 1940s death. Is this left over from the same speculator who had MLK fighting the Nazis?JonathanMarkoff (talk) 04:14, March 3, 2019 (UTC) :No, we learned that both the UK and the USSR fell in the 1940s, and there is no reason to think either survived. TR (talk) 05:34, March 3, 2019 (UTC) ::"The Phantom Tolbukhin" has Stalin surviving in exile at least in 1947. And Churchill could have escaped to Canada, or been imprisoned like Daladier in the 1940s but survived into the 1950s. Stating dogmatically that Churchill and Stalin died in the 1940s reeks of speculation.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 05:38, March 3, 2019 (UTC) :::No, it reeks of going by the information available. TR (talk) 17:02, March 3, 2019 (UTC) ::::Which is not an unpleasant smell at all. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:22, March 3, 2019 (UTC) Random counterfactual ideas Interesting list of hypothetical counterfactual events.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 08:18, March 31, 2019 (UTC) *Donald Trump, 45th President of the United States in OTL, who, in the guise of the "Terrific Leader", tyrannically rules the U.S. in the near-future in the short piece "The Terrific Leader," and would do so in real life, if we let him. Imagine being this retarded and protecting it from being edited. Who edited this piece of sh- wisdom?Samothracian (talk) 14:56, November 3, 2019 (UTC) :I don't see the problem? Turtle Fan (talk) 19:05, November 3, 2019 (UTC) ::Truth is stranger than fiction.Matthew Babe Stevenson (talk) 00:16, November 4, 2019 (UTC) Southern Victory reference In The Center Cannot Hold, p. 92 HC, I see a reference which simply says that Stalin and Molotov are hanging out in Tsaritsyn. Nothing about a last stand or a battle.Matthew Babe Stevenson (talk) 08:22, December 15, 2019 (UTC) :If I remember correctly, we extrapolated that from the fact that right after that reference the Romanovs are back in power. Maybe we should reassess. Turtle Fan (talk) 17:45, December 15, 2019 (UTC)